High Court rules claimant would likely have used legal expenses insurance if advised
A High Court judge has disallowed a success fee of more than £30,000 charged by Fletchers Solicitors Limited after finding that a claimant would likely have used existing legal expenses insurance had appropriate enquiries been made.
In a judgment handed down on 19 June 2026, Senior Costs Judge Rowley considered a dispute between Peter Evans and Fletchers Solicitors Limited arising from legal costs charged following the successful settlement of a personal injury claim.
Mr Evans instructed Fletchers after suffering injuries in a road traffic accident in 2017. The claim later settled for £250,000, with the settlement recorded in July 2021. Following the conclusion of the case, Fletchers issued a bill totalling £61,615.13, including a success fee of £30,365.13 that had been capped under the statutory limit applicable to personal injury claims.
Mr Evans subsequently brought proceedings under the Solicitors Act 1974, challenging the bill and arguing that his claim should have been funded through legal expenses insurance rather than a conditional fee agreement. He maintained that, had that funding route been used, he would not have incurred a success fee or after-the-event insurance costs.
The court examined the steps taken by Fletchers to investigate whether before-the-event legal expenses insurance was available. Evidence showed that Mr Evans had identified family legal expenses cover connected to his home insurance policy when he signed the conditional fee agreement in April 2017.
Judge Rowley found that no enquiries were made regarding the insurance in 2017 despite the information being available. He also concluded that later enquiries undertaken in 2019 were inadequate. The judgment states that the defendant had no record of contacting the legal expenses insurer and that reasonable efforts were not made to establish whether cover existed.
After reviewing the available evidence, the judge determined that, on the balance of probabilities, legal expenses insurance would have been available to Mr Evans. He further concluded that Mr Evans would likely have used that insurance had he been properly advised of the option.
The court rejected arguments that the insurance policy would have been unsuitable or that deductions from damages would inevitably have remained necessary. The judgment found no evidence that a success fee would have been required if the claim had proceeded under the insurance arrangement.
As a result, Judge Rowley ruled that the success fee should be disallowed in its entirety. However, he declined to strike out the firm’s base legal costs, finding that those costs would still have been payable even if legal expenses insurance had been used.
The judgment forms part of the ongoing assessment of the costs bill and addresses the central issue of funding that lay at the heart of the dispute.